best lens for Macro (20d)

Labman

I do allot of Macro photography much of it with corals and marine animals I am looking at a few contenders what are your recondations please. this is about my budget I could go a little higher but like to stay in this price range. hope I posted this in theright area.



Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 1:1 macro USM bh $469

Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG 1:1 macro $399

Tamron 90mm SP AF 90mm f/2.8 1:1 macro $489 + 90 rebate

Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG 1:1 macro $499

quark

My vote is for the 100mm canon. I really enjoy this lens but I have never tried the others.

claudermilk

I've been looking at this recently (is everybody not already into macro trying to get into it right now or what? ). From what I've seen the Tamron and Sigma 180mm are supposed to rival if not outperform the Canon macros.

I am going to start with the Tokina extension tube set and use it with my 24-70 and 70-200. If I decide to go further, I am strongly leaning towards the Tamron 180/3.5 macro; it's gotten a lot of really good reviews, and is $700 vs Canon's $1200 and Sigma's $800.

Looked again, that's out of the stated budget. Of your list, the lenses I've seen the most recommendations for & have looked the hardest at is the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 150mm. Both seem to be at or near the top of the general macro lens to-get lists. However, keep in mind, I'm still at the research stage myself, so this is just digesting all my looking around & not personal experience with the lenses.

USAIR

claudermilk wrote:

I've been looking at this recently (is everybody not already into macro trying to get into it right now or what? ). From what I've seen the Tamron and Sigma 180mm are supposed to rival if not outperform the Canon macros.

I am going to start with the Tokina extension tube set and use it with my 24-70 and 70-200. If I decide to go further, I am strongly leaning towards the Tamron 180/3.5 macro; it's gotten a lot of really good reviews, and is $700 vs Canon's $1200 and Sigma's $800.

Looked again, that's out of the stated budget. Of your list, the lenses I've seen the most recommendations for & have looked the hardest at is the Tamron 90mm and the Sigma 150mm. Both seem to be at or near the top of the general macro lens to-get lists. However, keep in mind, I'm still at the research stage myself, so this is just digesting all my looking around & not personal experience with the lenses.

Using the 70-200 Canon is a good idea and it works great too.
Cheap and you can always buy the macro lens later

Check out this thread too

And welcome to Dgrin

Fred

hgernhardtjr

USAIR wrote:

Using the 70-200 Canon is a good idea and it works great too.
Cheap and you can always buy the macro lens later

Check out this thread too

And welcome to Dgrin

Fred

Just curious: Labman said "with corals and marine animals". To me that implies wetwork (underwater) ... perhaps he needs to clarify as I am sure there are not too many reasonable-priced off-the-shelf housings that would hold the 70-200 2.8 or similar long lens. Customizable housings with longer ports, yes.

I would think the 100 2.8 would work, but would be significantly more than the crop 160mm equivalent since water magnifies another 10% or so.

Of course, Labman may mean surface shooting ...

Hussain-Arts

i already have Tamron 90mm SP AF 90mm f/2.8 1:1 macro $489 + 90 rebate and it's working very great with me ... here's a sample by Canon 350D with that Tamron Macro Lense



also love to use it for Portrait Pictures :ivar

Peace

wesleyt

I bought the Tamron 90 macro with my 30D and adore it. I've not once regretted going with it versus the Canon.

- Wes

sirsloop

Do you have a flash? If not I suggest you leave budget for one w/ a bracket and offshoe cord!!